vaultwarden_get_webauthnList registered WebAuthn/FIDO2 security keys for a Vaultwarden account, helping you review and manage 2FA hardware authenticators.
List registered WebAuthn/FIDO2 2FA security keys
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| json_body | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only that the keys are 'registered' and FIDO2/2FA in nature; it does not say whether results are scoped to the calling user or an admin-supplied user, nor anything about pagination or ordering.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no annotations explaining return shape, plus three undocumented parameters. For a listing tool the description should at least indicate what a returned key record contains and whose keys are returned; neither is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Three parameters (form, params, json_body) with 0% schema description coverage and no mention of them in the description. The description provides no compensating meaning for what these opaque passthrough parameters should contain, so the agent has no basis for populating them correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (list) and specific resource (registered WebAuthn/FIDO2 2FA security keys), which is more precise than the bare title 'Get webauthn'. It separates itself somewhat from siblings like activate_webauthn or generate_webauthn_challenge, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from vaultwarden_get_api_webauthn.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The agent must infer from the noun phrase that this is for auditing a user's enrolled security keys rather than enrolling or deleting them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.